winterwhile: so dem-o-rats and liberals

How much of every $ I make, should I get to keep?

Most.

winterwhile: so dem-o-rats and liberals

How much of every $ I make, should I get to keep?

Excellent question actually. How much of it do you think you should keep?

colon_pow: she sounds like one of those wild-eyed libtard whackadoodles.

Not at all, even though her district (mine) is probably one of the more liberal ones in the state of IL. She usually handles herself pretty well and while using the word deserve will just feed into the self-righteous indignation of the "I did it all on my own" retards, she's pretty much right.

This year she introduced a bill creating several new tax brackets above the ridiculously low $380 k, which would allow a more nuanced approach to progressive tax increases. I'm not shocked that it hasn't been called up for a vote (as far as I am aware).

Wyalt Derp: You do deserve to keep all of it, as long as you don't use roads or streetlights or want a police force, et cetera.

roads are paid for via usage taxes. How much do I have to pay out of each $ earned?

winterwhile: so dem-o-rats and liberals

How much of every $ I make, should I get to keep?

Depends on how much you have and how you got it. I would say your proceeds from the meth lab you run should probably all be confiscated.

cabbyman: A working government is not a government that works solely for itself.

"Solely" for itself? You don't see how anything the government does benefits any American?


Government isn't going away but it's going to get smaller.

From everything I'm hearing if you don't like it then you should move to Sweden.

Uh, I paid for the US government. I'm staying right the fark here. And I have as much of a right to tell it what to spend its money on as you do.

TofuTheAlmighty: "I'll put it this way. You don't deserve to keep all of it and it's not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer," Schakowsky said.If you disagree with this, move to Somalia, you farking cretin.

If you don't like it that government is getting smaller then move to Venezuela you nazi whore.

See how that works?

drhansenej: winterwhile: so dem-o-rats and liberals

How much of every $ I make, should I get to keep?

So your suggestion is that you pay no taxes, and then you mooch off the rest of us who do pay for infrastructure, defense, and general upkeep of this society? Go fark yourself.

so how much do I get to keep so I can go Fark myself?

drhansenej: winterwhile: so dem-o-rats and liberals

How much of every $ I make, should I get to keep?

So your suggestion is that you pay no taxes, and then you mooch off the rest of us who do pay for infrastructure, defense, and general upkeep of this society? Go fark yourself.

It sounds crazy but that mentality is truer than you think.

It starts with them trying to goad rich liberals into donating their money to the government. Soon they'll be telling everybody who cares--rich, poor, and in between--to use their own money to donate the taxes that Teabaggers should pay but don't want to.

Greedy farks.

winterwhile: I have a volunteer fire house, live on my own well and septic, fight of the new taxes dem-o-rats want for their silly green jobs.

It would be low, as I really don't need you. (Gun is locked and loaded for vermin hunting. I bagged one 2 weeks ago)



What Winterwhile may look like.

A common way that many political states have failed, such as pre-revolution France, is where the rich get the state to exempt them from taxes - thus buying their loyalty - or the state allows the rich to buy rente seeking official positions.

Then the only people left to tax are the peasants who revolt and get all head-cutting-offy.

TofuTheAlmighty: "I'll put it this way. You don't deserve to keep all of it and it's not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer," Schakowsky said.

Ah, so that's the actual quote. The site is blocked at work for some reason.

Here's the thing -- I disagree with the use of the word "deserve" here. I don't feel that it's a justice issue -- ideally, every American should keep every dollar that they earn through honest means. But we need a government, and we need to fund it somehow, and it's far more practical to ask that the rich give a bigger share of their income than those who are struggling to get by. Making it a moral issue just makes her seem like an ideologue.

Arkanaut: TofuTheAlmighty: "I'll put it this way. You don't deserve to keep all of it and it's not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer," Schakowsky said.

Ah, so that's the actual quote. The site is blocked at work for some reason.

Here's the thing -- I disagree with the use of the word "deserve" here. I don't feel that it's a justice issue -- ideally, every American should keep every dollar that they earn through honest means. But we need a government, and we need to fund it somehow, and it's far more practical to ask that the rich give a bigger share of their income than those who are struggling to get by. Making it a moral issue just makes her seem like an ideologue.

No one is arguing for absolutely no government. One of the main arguments is that the Federal government is overstepping it's bounds and it's time to start reeling it in. One of the few ways to do that is to starve it for money so it can prioritize what it spends it's money on instead of continually asking for more money.

We could save a ton of money by getting out of the Middle East. If starving the government for money is the only way to get that done then we should starve the government for money. We can still have roads (although the federal government doesn't have to be in charge of road building) and we can still have police and fire departments (although the federal government doesn't have to be in charge of police and fire departments). We just need to stop pissing away money in other areas in order to have them.

Prioritize and then spend accordingly.

You know what? I paid about $3,700 in taxes last year. After filing my forms, I just sat and thought about how much money that really was and how it equalled about 10% of my taxable earnings for the year. Honestly, if it were $4,700, I wouldn't have said a word.

I guess I'd be considered lower middle class, but I do not have any qualms paying that much to live in this country. For, as someone earlier quoted, me to live in a civilized country with the rights and freedoms I still have left, it's a pittance. it is a patriotic duty top pay taxes because even if you're not on welfare, or food stamps, or other programs funded by the federal level, every one of us gets a return on what we pay. It may not be tangible like a fruit of the mont club membership, but we all get it. Those programs, while not perfect, elevate our society from being clans of homeless making roadkill for 20 over a fire barrel. People exploit, it, yes, but it also helps keep our society as a whole healthier and give many people that have either made poor life choices or their environment simply made it too difficult to advance themselves as quickly as others a chance to live a meager, yet normal life. If those families can help themselves a little more because of my $3,700, that's fine by me. Will I get pissed when I see a family of 8 buying steak with food stamps? Damn howdy. However, I will not bat an eye at the family buying milk, juice, bread, eggs, cereal, and hamburger.

Do I think people should pay more if they make more? Not entirely, but I also don't expect them to pay the same as I do if they're pulling $500,000 a year, either.

Do I think businesses and coorporations should pay more? Abso-farkin-lutely. All they would need to do is close loopholes for offshore offices and tax based on on what country you're headquartered, but by how much business you do inside the country's borders. Looking at you, GE.

Zalan: Roads to drive on? Armies to protect us from foreign aggression? Safe food/water? Safe medicines? Fire Departments? Those are just all gifts from JEEEZUS to protect us, no need to pay for any of that stuff.

Society has costs. Don't like living in a society? Go to Somalia, no government to take your money.

republicans are stupid, they think the money they earned is money that they earned. They just dont realize they arent entitled to what they earned.

This is a common misconception among the simple and stupid who somehow think that what they do is related to what they get

they dont deserve their money just because they worked for it; they arent worthy to keep it because of their shortcomings as people, for not realizing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

they arent equipped to make moral choices about what to do with the the money they earned but dont deserve.

if only they could be taught to read and think, or at least to be better at doing what they are told by their betters

cabbyman: Arkanaut: TofuTheAlmighty: "I'll put it this way. You don't deserve to keep all of it and it's not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer," Schakowsky said.

Ah, so that's the actual quote. The site is blocked at work for some reason.

Here's the thing -- I disagree with the use of the word "deserve" here. I don't feel that it's a justice issue -- ideally, every American should keep every dollar that they earn through honest means. But we need a government, and we need to fund it somehow, and it's far more practical to ask that the rich give a bigger share of their income than those who are struggling to get by. Making it a moral issue just makes her seem like an ideologue.

No one is arguing for absolutely no government. One of the main arguments is that the Federal government is overstepping it's bounds and it's time to start reeling it in. One of the few ways to do that is to starve it for money so it can prioritize what it spends it's money on instead of continually asking for more money.

We could save a ton of money by getting out of the Middle East. If starving the government for money is the only way to get that done then we should starve the government for money. We can still have roads (although the federal government doesn't have to be in charge of road building) and we can still have police and fire departments (although the federal government doesn't have to be in charge of police and fire departments). We just need to stop pissing away money in other areas in order to have them.

Prioritize and then spend accordingly.

What makes you think that the Republicans share your priorities after the starve the government? What idf the areas that you feel are "pissing away money" are the very ones that the Republicans will do anything to protect?

Set Georgist and Pigovian taxes at 100 percent. Subsidize things with positive externalities that are undersupplied by the market, and fund true public goods. If any money is left over (and there damned well should be), reduce taxes on labor, capital, and trade. If any money is left over after that, cut every citizen an equal rebate.

Is it really that difficult to understand?

/A platform as progressive as a Canadian Green.

Dinki: She is right, submittard.

This.

Conservatives talk a lot shiat about OTHER people paying their dues (because shiat costs money, life isn't fair, etc), but they don't want to pay their own. They think all the things the state does for them should be free. i guess the poor and our grandchildren should pay for it all.

It's not about "sharing the wealth" it's about sharing the COSTS. Roads, armies, space shuttles, the FBI, the CIA and what not cost money. They don't run on unicorn farts.

Arkanaut: TofuTheAlmighty: "I'll put it this way. You don't deserve to keep all of it and it's not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer," Schakowsky said.

Ah, so that's the actual quote. The site is blocked at work for some reason.

Here's the thing -- I disagree with the use of the word "deserve" here. I don't feel that it's a justice issue -- ideally, every American should keep every dollar that they earn through honest means. But we need a government, and we need to fund it somehow, and it's far more practical to ask that the rich give a bigger share of their income than those who are struggling to get by. Making it a moral issue just makes her seem like an ideologue.

It's a moral issue.

cabbyman: No one is arguing for absolutely no government. One of the main arguments is that the Federal government is overstepping it's bounds and it's time to start reeling it in.

You're right, they aren't arguing for "no government", they are arguing for a gov't that benefits the richest few at the expense of the many. They want to take money from public schools to make education a privilege the elite pass to their children, they want ignorant masses they can cow into working for just enough to keep them from rebelling.

We're not pissing away money in the Middle East anymore than we pissed it away in Europe with WW1, WW2, the Marshall Plan and the Cold War.

cabbyman: We could save a ton of money by getting out of the Middle East. If starving the government for money is the only way to get that done then we should starve the government for money. We can still have roads (although the federal government doesn't have to be in charge of road building) and we can still have police and fire departments (although the federal government doesn't have to be in charge of police and fire departments). We just need to stop pissing away money in other areas in order to have them.

Yeah but it isn't. Congress still controls the pursestrings of the government -- they could cut off funding for operations in Libya if they choose, but instead they threaten to neuter Medicare or halt needed construction projects.

Also, the federal government isn't in charge of police and fire departments, but that's a minor quibble.

Mr_Fabulous: How is it possible for these retards to keep two diametrically opposite ideas top-of-mind at all times?

A. "We are the greatest nation ever, a shining beacon for the world with the greatest and bestest of everything, blessed by God Almighty Himself!"

B. "Our governmental institutions are the most vile, corrupt thing that ever happened, and we absolutely can't afford the costs of greatness."

Pick a farking lane, tards.

we are great in spite of our vile institutions. Its not really that hard unless the hot air in your head prevents you from storing more than 1 idea at a time

Zalan: Roads to drive on? Armies to protect us from foreign aggression? Safe food/water? Safe medicines? Fire Departments? Those are just all gifts from JEEEZUS to protect us, no need to pay for any of that stuff.

Society has costs. Don't like living in a society? Go to Somalia, no government to take your money.

The average person at the end of the day already gives almost 50 cents of every dollar to government. How much is enough already?

winterwhile: so dem-o-rats and liberals

How much of every $ I make, should I get to keep?

You deserve to keep all of it. On the other hand, if you wish to live in an organized society that enables your survival, you don't actually get to keep all of it.
One of those funny little paradoxes that keep life interesting, that.

EWreckedSean: Zalan: Roads to drive on? Armies to protect us from foreign aggression? Safe food/water? Safe medicines? Fire Departments? Those are just all gifts from JEEEZUS to protect us, no need to pay for any of that stuff.

Society has costs. Don't like living in a society? Go to Somalia, no government to take your money.

The average person at the end of the day already gives almost 50 cents of every dollar to government. How much is enough already?

[citation needed]

But you won't supply one. That's why you're in bright red color-ignore.

Personally, I don't mind paying taxes to build roads, pay firemen, and weave a social safety net for the poor; however, I'm damned sick of paying taxes to bomb countries that never threatened the US, imprison people whose sole "crime" was ingesting an intoxicant other than alcohol, hire high-school drop-outs to fondle and terrorize innocent travelers in airports, give millions or even billions of dollars to corporations with political connections ... quit wasting tax money on just those four things I listed, and we'd have plenty of tax money left to pay for "the good stuff" and pay down the national debt, without even raising tax rates.

jso2897: winterwhile: so dem-o-rats and liberals

How much of every $ I make, should I get to keep?

You deserve to keep all of it. On the other hand, if you wish to live in an organized society that enables your survival, you don't actually get to keep all of it.
One of those funny little paradoxes that keep life interesting, that.

so, how much can I keep? How much will you take?

Of course you don't deserve to keep all your money.

Why is this even news ?

cabbyman: A working government is not a government that works solely for itself.

Agrees

winterwhile:
so, how much can I keep? How much will you take?

I don't know why you're so desperate for a figure, but to give you a windmill to tilt at, the answer is that the US government takes (with the consent of, and at the direction of, its population) a little under 30% of the total GDP as tax revenue

But even that figure is misleading, because it doesn't factor in how much more money you can make by virtue of living in the stable society produced by that taxation.

TwoHead: EWreckedSean: The average person at the end of the day already gives almost 50 cents of every dollar to government.

If that is true and the oft told tale that 50% of people don't pay any taxes does that mean the other 50% are paying 100 cents of every dollar to the government?

I just looked at my paycheck and after pre-tax deductions for 401k and medical, 28% of my check goes towards federal/state/SS/medicare taxes, and I have a salary above the national average. I guess though that's almost like 50 cents of every dollar going to the government, much like I'm almost dating Scarlett Johansen.

All the property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who, by their laws have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition.

He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages. He can have no right to the benefits of society, who will not pay his club towards the support of it.

- Benjamin Franklin

TwoHead:
Quit slacking! Because you aren't carrying your weight someone out there is paying 122% of every dollar now.

Well you can thank the Federal Reserve Printing Press for that!

She should have cut the first part of the sentence and just gone with the clarified "it's not a question of deserving or not deserving" bit, since that's closer to the reality of taxes. It's about paying for things that the country as a whole needs, being fair or equitable is secondary to a host of practical concerns.

But what d'you want? She was speaking off-the-cuff, there are going to be some unrefined statements that have to be clarified, that's going to happen in any interview that's not completely composed of softballs.

nobodyUwannaknow: He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages. He can have no right to the benefits of society, who will not pay his club towards the support of it.

- Benjamin Franklin

Where is this "civil society" of which you speak? I'd love to pay taxes to a civil society, rather than the uncivil society I pay tax to now. (I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation: all the federal income tax I personally paid over the last decade just about cover the annual salary of one employee in a CIA black-box torture prison. I don't know how many more years I'll have to pay income tax to cover health insurance bennies for that waterboarding professional, though.)

Alphax: And generally the ones with the most money did the least work to get it.

blame your dad for not working hard enough to leave you a trust fund.

Is this the one where the Democrat brings up the trivial spending on research and infrastructure to defend the unrelated massive welfare state which drawves it? *clicks link* - Yep. YAWN.

winterwhile: jso2897: winterwhile: so dem-o-rats and liberals

How much of every $ I make, should I get to keep?

You deserve to keep all of it. On the other hand, if you wish to live in an organized society that enables your survival, you don't actually get to keep all of it.
One of those funny little paradoxes that keep life interesting, that.

so, how much can I keep? How much will you take?

That's an ongoing, negotiable feature of the social contract. You have as much to say about that as I do. But if you actually want civilization (and I don't know about you, but I really like civilization), that takes government, and that costs money. So as a practical matter, it's going to be something - you don't get a free lunch.
Your typical "libertarian" freeloader just wants to benefit from society, but not contribute to it - in essence, he's a looter.

winterwhile: Mr_Fabulous: winterwhile: so dem-o-rats and liberals

How much of every $ I make, should I get to keep?

Why don't you just tell us what you think is your fair share for all the stuff we've already bought for you?

I have a volunteer fire house, live on my own well and septic, fight of the new taxes dem-o-rats want for their silly green jobs.

It would be low, as I really don't need you. (Gun is locked and loaded for vermin hunting. I bagged one 2 weeks ago)

The government plays a critical role in ensuring that you aren't poisoning your family with the very water you drink. It is the government that inspects and monitors the water table so it can take efficient, preemptive action. It is the government that inspects and makes sure that your neighbor's septic system doesn't rupture, or that the car mechanic isn't dumping used motor oil and acids into the ground. It is the government and its court system that allows you a redress of grievances against those that injure you and your family. It is the government that prevents your land from becoming worthless because the well water became toxic. It is the government that prevents others from exhausting the water supply and leaving your family, and your volunteer fire house, with an expensive and dangerous water shortage.

You are not in a bubble of rugged, self-reliant independence.

beta_plus: Is this the one where the Democrat brings up the trivial spending on research and infrastructure to defend the unrelated massive welfare state which drawves it? *clicks link* - Yep. YAWN.

Yeah - but , realistically, what can they do? They know that with the "terrorism" button getting pushed all day and night in the media, the military is pretty much a political third rail - touch it and you get fried.

jso2897: winterwhile: jso2897: winterwhile: That's an ongoing, negotiable feature of the social contract. You have as much to say about that as I do. But if you actually want civilization (and I don't know about you, but I really like civilization), that takes government, and that costs money. So as a practical matter, it's going to be something - you don't get a free lunch.
Your typical "libertarian" freeloader just wants to benefit from society, but not contribute to it - in essence, he's a looter.

so to not be label-ed a looter

how much do I get to keep?

apeiron242: Arkanaut: Making it a moral issue just makes her seem like an ideologue.

It's a moral issue.

OK, try me. Is it more moral for someone to pay 39.6% on income above $379,150 instead of 35%? Why not 80% like in the Eisenhower years, or even 100%? Please also enumerate the principles that you are arguing from.

TwoHead: EWreckedSean: The average person at the end of the day already gives almost 50 cents of every dollar to government.

If that is true and the oft told tale that 50% of people don't pay any taxes does that mean the other 50% are paying 100 cents of every dollar to the government?

50% don't pay federal income tax, which is simply one out of many taxes that we pay.

winterwhile: Rwa2play: winterwhile: so dem-o-rats and liberals

How much of every $ I make, should I get to keep?

You like roads and bridges maintained so your motor vehicle doesn't wear out, right? Okay then, stop biatching and pay your share.

what exactly is my share?

Whatever social security, medicare/medicaid/obamacare, welfare, public education. and public housing cost - since without them we wouldn't be able to have roads.

/this is what liberals actually believe

winterwhile:
how much do I get to keep?

I told you earlier. Although it will depend on your income, on average you get to keep a little over 70%.